- From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 10:45:04 -0400
- To: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
There was a related discussion on the mailing list: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-November/029252.html I also found a message from Hixie to me, related to that thread: "I agree entirely that if an event has a use case, it makes sense for it to have an event handler attribute." On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote: > > On May 9, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> Where was that discussion? > > > > This came up at the WebApps F2F and there was general agreement that > > if we added new events adding new event handler attributes would make > > sense. > > Was there any notes taken? > > > > Feature detection of some kind is useful as forcing people to > > do UA sniffing leads to badness. > > I am not arguing that it shouldn't be done. I just don't think it as > important as most people. For example, even if the device is present, it > may be off or not responding. In that case, you'll have a feature that > tests positive and never receive any events.
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:45:44 UTC